There may be something in the nature of the skeptic that makes him/her less suited to lead the general public and succeed in politics.
That’s a suspicion of mine that was further fueled by a research team from the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds and their finding about the qualities of leaders. Briefly, it was this:
[S]uccessful leaders display more decisive behaviour, spending less time following others and acting more quickly than others in the group. [source]
The “less time following others” I imagine skeptics have nailed. But maybe not. Maybe we/they spend time following different others, such as pillars of the skeptical community.
It’s the “decisive behavior” and “acting more quickly” element that might get in the way of skeptics taking on leadership roles in the wider community.
While I and many of my skeptical cohorts tend to see deliberate thought and the public display of a lack of certainty to be virtues, judging by the politicians that get elected in this country, many, many other people do not, at least not in politicians.
Alas, all is not lost. It seems to me that in a healthy society there can and should be a system of checks and balances. And educated skeptics could serve the essential role of informing those with more decisive and quick-acting temperaments.
Of course, I could be all wet.
Damn, that wasn’t very decisive of me.
> Related Posts
Tags: personality, politics
Leave a Reply